I would say the harm in the male gaze comes primarily from it's pervasiveness in society to the exclusion of alternatives. I would say a lot of the harm lies in how it is seen as the default perspective, and in the existence of an expectation to conform to it, especially for women.

As for how you tell whether or not something is objectification, first of all, I don't think the critical component is the consent of the participants. To take a concrete example, there was once this advertisement for cologne which depicted a nude, open-mouthed woman squeezing the cologne bottle between her breasts (lol, subtle).

Her face above her open mouth and everything else was cropped out. I'm sure she consented to be in the advertizement and was paid for her work, but you can't, in my mind get around the fact that the ad itself was objectification that didn't treat her as an individual, or a person, or even as a 'subject' in any sense. The model's feelings about the work she did don't really have any effect on the fact that the message itself is harmful (*insofar as it exists in the context of a societal environment saturated with similar messages)

I would say the harm in the male gaze comes primarily from it's pervasiveness in society to the exclusion of alternatives. I would say a lot of the harm lies in how it is seen as the default perspective, and in the existence of an expectation to conform to it, especially for women.

I wrote a whole bunch of stuff then deleted it to come at it from a different way: when one person looks at another person only in a way where they view them as less human, and it's not in a way that they would want to be viewed, it's objectification (all the bad -ism like sexism, racism, etc.) and under most circumstances it's wrong. You also need to realize if they agree to some sort of willing, mutual exchange that it only last for the terms of the exchange--they've given you a privilege in exchange for you paying a price.

It's hard to pin it down in more specific terms than that since there are way too many exceptions we've hashed this out a lot here. Even in a case where you can't really be wrong in regarding them as less than human, say notorious serial killer John Wayne Gacy, you're better off not maintaining your negative emotions against them because , frankly, that shit just ain't healthy. Yes we can call him a monster, we can recognize what he did was atrocious, we can say he acted in inhuman ways and thereby forfeited his right t be thought of as a human being through his own actions, BUT then you need to move on, focus on some other shit.

Me, personally, I'm full of all kinds of anger and hate and vitriol . . . and finally realized it stemmed from being surrounded by people who were just like that. People I didn't want to be like, but had inadvertently wound up becoming just like (namely closed mined, judgmental asswipes) and it wasn't helping me in anyway. It's the whole Nietzsche "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you." sort of deal.

In the same way, you should look at women not just as a girl, a tomboy, a fatty, a slut, a hottie, a _______, or even a woman-- they are people before anything else, that's really what it comes down to. Treat them all the same, don't treat people better or worse because of external factors. Try not to label them if you can help it. Goes for your interactions with men too.

Why do you need to do this? Because it simply makes you a better person and -- OMFG -- BEING A GOOD PERSON TAKES WORK AND EFFORT_________________...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.http://about.me/omardrake

I agree with a lot of the things I'm reading. I think we should treat people as people too, and only as men or women and so forth accidentally -- in theory. But in practice, when you deal with anyone, who you think of them as, how you relate to them, seems to have a lot to do with their accidents and their particular qualities too -- so that if you took any person, and tried to abstract away from everything that didn't have to do with them being a person, what remained would be unrecognizable.

It's the same way with the principle that you should never treat people merely as a means but also always as an end. It would be nice to say that you should just never treat people as a means period, but when you think about it, because of the way we organize ourselves and rely on each other, we're constantly treating people as a means -- so that's why you have to say "merely".

And I think it's the same with objectification -- especially in sex. Whenever you look at someone as a potential sexual partner, or (because that's really way too narrow) as someone attractive, there's always some level where you're thinking about what you want from that person, in terms of romance and sex. And that threatens to obscure your view of them as a person, if you're not careful. So I guess it seems like there has to be a kind of balance -- it has to be the kind of thing where your the background of your attraction to a person is your view of them as an autonomous agent. And as for the individual so for society.

That being said, psychologically, I always sort've think that people need some outlet or fantasy to blow off steam. I guess when it comes to fantasies and gratuitous representations of sex, the two schools are either that subconsciously they make you more likely to engage in those acts, so they have a corrupting influence, or else that the fantasy serves as a kind of outlet for desires that otherwise would be suppressed and manifest themselves in less, er, desirable ways. I've always leaned towards the latter school too, so that from a pragmatic perspective I think these representations might actually have good consequences -- but again, I'm not sure how you would decide that controversy either.

In the same way, you should look at women not just as a girl, a tomboy, a fatty, a slut, a hottie, a _______, or even a woman-- they are people before anything else, that's really what it comes down to. Treat them all the same, don't treat people better or worse because of external factors. Try not to label them if you can help it. Goes for your interactions with men too.

Why do you need to do this? Because it simply makes you a better person and -- OMFG -- BEING A GOOD PERSON TAKES WORK AND EFFORT

I honestly thought that "being a good person" pretty much just means that you stop being a dick. It's just that many people don't seem to understand that being judgemental based on stereotypes is pretty much a subset of being a dick.

It seems to me when most people say, "I'm a good person," they mean that they haven't done anything really bad, and that a lot of people think of being good as a matter of not breaking the rules and abstaining from harm.

I agree with a lot of the things I'm reading. I think we should treat people as people too, and only as men or women and so forth accidentally -- in theory. But in practice, when you deal with anyone, who you think of them as, how you relate to them, seems to have a lot to do with their accidents and their particular qualities too -- so that if you took any person, and tried to abstract away from everything that didn't have to do with them being a person, what remained would be unrecognizable.

It's the same way with the principle that you should never treat people merely as a means but also always as an end. It would be nice to say that you should just never treat people as a means period, but when you think about it, because of the way we organize ourselves and rely on each other, we're constantly treating people as a means -- so that's why you have to say "merely".

And I think it's the same with objectification -- especially in sex. Whenever you look at someone as a potential sexual partner, or (because that's really way too narrow) as someone attractive, there's always some level where you're thinking about what you want from that person, in terms of romance and sex. And that threatens to obscure your view of them as a person, if you're not careful. So I guess it seems like there has to be a kind of balance -- it has to be the kind of thing where your the background of your attraction to a person is your view of them as an autonomous agent. And as for the individual so for society.

That being said, psychologically, I always sort've think that people need some outlet or fantasy to blow off steam. I guess when it comes to fantasies and gratuitous representations of sex, the two schools are either that subconsciously they make you more likely to engage in those acts, so they have a corrupting influence, or else that the fantasy serves as a kind of outlet for desires that otherwise would be suppressed and manifest themselves in less, er, desirable ways. I've always leaned towards the latter school too, so that from a pragmatic perspective I think these representations might actually have good consequences -- but again, I'm not sure how you would decide that controversy either.

Someone else can probably explain a bunch of this stuff better than I could right now (It's late, I'm getting tired) but I'll say this much: we humans are highly visually oriented animals, I think something like 80% of the data our brains process comes from what we see. That said, it's really about working beyond and above that base animalistic shit.

Also, A LOT of what you're saying is tinged and influenced by our patriarchal society and culture, so much so that the fact you don't realize it is basically proof of how ingrained it is in our society and culture.

Check yourself and your own behavior: try to keep some mental notes on how you interact and treat the women around you. See if you were treating them differently depending if you found them attractive or not, if you thought of them as a potential sex partner or not, this kinda things hard to do but you might learn some stuff about yourself. You may discover stuff you don't like or aren't happy with._________________...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.http://about.me/omardrake

also basically the male gaze is that things are done and designed to please men. Like with "sex sells" in advertising, it sells to men surely, because where are all of the sexy men compared to the women. And in video games, though you might say that video games are a mainly male thing (which ignores this: According to a study conducted by the Entertainment Software Association in 2012, 47% of the game playing population is female, and women 18 or older now comprise 30% of all gamers. ) but still games tend to be mostly made for guys.

Which results in the initial mass effect games where there was only one lesbian gay romance and no male gay romances. Because for one thing the male gaze is assumed to be a straight male. And loads of straight males like to get off on lesbian romances, but wouldn't want to see gay males. They've improved at the moment, but you still see in loads of other games how there's the armour discrepancy.

I remember the first time I picked up this awesome looking warm fur jacket thing in oblivion, and on my female character it turned into a fur-kini. I was so pissed.

@Fat lady, woah I honestly think you guys have an encyclopaedic knowledge of sinfest comic strips._________________- explanation of feminism -

Near-naked superhorny women is a male fantasy. Being a hulking Adonis who can punch through tanks is also a male fantasy. This ... this isn't hard, guys, unlike many things when you're considering those issues. If you ever find a woman sexually excited by men with the approximate dimensions of a semi truck, it's either Tila Tequila or Optimus Prime's number one fan.

A lot of these female objectification things for the male gaze, are just gross. They happen sometimes in the UK, but most of these things I think happen much more frequently in the US._________________- explanation of feminism -